Its not really the skeptics job to disprove anything, its the believers job to prove their theory.

If you take an opposing view on anything you should be ready to defend your position. It's only a believer or anyone else's job to defend if they make a supposition as fact. A belief needs only to be believed in by the person and doesn't require anyone's blessing or approval, save that of the person who claims it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AREA__51 21

Not believing in Bigfoot really isnt an opposing view, its nothing more than having a firm grasp at logic. If I had to prove my opinion, which is that Bigfoot doesnt exist, all I have to do is point at the overwhelming lack of evidence. An old saying applies here "put up or shut up".

Edited December 30, 2012 by AREA__51

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

keninsc 1,306

Poltergeist

Closed

1,306

3,231 posts

Gender:Not Selected

The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AREA__51 21

Not really, you say its only a believers job to defend it if they are trying to pass it off as fact, which is the case many, many times. Look at all the fake footage, stupid tv shows, books. All lack evidence. Believers made a very disappointing case. But you also said If you take an opposing view on anything you should be ready to defend your position. Which really doesnt make any sense at all. i didnt read it wrong, it just doesnt apply in this case.

Edited December 30, 2012 by AREA__51

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

keninsc 1,306

Poltergeist

Closed

1,306

3,231 posts

Gender:Not Selected

The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

This probably a waste of time and effort, but I'm in a magnanimous mood this evening.

If you take an opposing view on anything you should be ready to defend your position. It's only a believer or anyone else's job to defend if they make a supposition as fact. A belief needs only to be believed in by the person and doesn't require anyone's blessing or approval, save that of the person who claims it.

Before the patterson film, a man made some prints with wooden feet to keep vandals away from his logging equipment, and started the urban legend.

It is no coincidence that Patterson also had a high regard for this person (Ray Wallace) and consulted him prior to making his Bigfoot film...

"Either the most complex and sophisticated hoax in the history of anthropology has continued for centuries without being exposed, or the most manlike (and largest) non-human primate on earth has managed to survive in parts of North America and remains undiscovered by modern science." - Forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, Former Director of the American Board of Forensic Anthropologists

Note that he says "anthropology" (the study of humankind; of our societies and cultures) rather than "biology" (study of living organisms) or even "zoology" (study of animal life). This is significant.

Following the trail of Bigfoot reveals a history of fakery and storytelling loosely based on the same theme - the Wild/Hairy Man. Such fakery and storytelling is neither overly complex nor sophisticated but it is a very human thing to do. This part of our (anglo) folkloric tradition overlaps with that of the Native Americans is reflected in the distribution of Bigfoot sightings which largely cease at the Mexican border. The folklore of the Latin culture which colonized central America overlaps with that of the Native Americans moreso in terms of "devils" (like the modern Chupucabra) than "wild/hairy-men". If Bigfoot were a real creature it would also be appearing with the same frequency south of the border and that is simply not the case...

There is much evidence that Bigfoot is a cultural experience. There is no evidence that Bigfoot is an undocumented species.

These guys were completely sincere in what they told me, that doesn't mean they couldn't have been mistaken you understand and that I can't rule out......because I wasn't there to see for myself. However, if these two guys told me something, I'd pretty much take it to the bank.

What, if anything, would you do if you found out they were faking it or making it up?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Night Walker 1,024

Psychic Spy

Member

1,024

1,466 posts

Gender:Male

Location:Where women glow and men plunder

We're all storytellers. We all live in a network of stories. There isn't a stronger connection between people than storytelling.

Did Wallace and "family" ever say where he got the idea for the giant footprints in 1958?

Mullins, a retired logger, disclosed this spring that while working for the Forest Service in 1930, he and some of his friends decided to "have some fun." Mullins fashioned a pair of 9 inch by 17 inch "feet" with a hatchet and a jack-knife from a piece of alder wood.

Bill Lambert, who was with Mullins, took the wooden feet to a spot at the base of Mount St. Helens where there were some huckleberry pickers.

According to Mullins, Lambert walked around the pickers' cars making "Bigfoot" prints. Later in the day, when Lambert and Mullins along with others were at the Ranger Station, the pickers came running to them to report the tracks.

Mullins lost track of his handiwork from the summer of 1930 until 1948, when Bert Lewis, one of the original hoaxers return them to him. In 1969 he supplied another pair of 16 inch wooden feet to Ray Wallace who allegedly took them to Northern California. Ray Wallace and Rant Mullins were neighbors in Toledo, Washington.In all, Rant Mullins claims he made eight sets of these wooden feet, most of which went to California. After explaining how he carved them, Mullins displayed his last set for the Skeptical Inquirer. They bore a striking resemblance to the 14.5 inch plaster casts of tracks cast by such famous Bigfoot proponents as Bob Gimlin, Rene Dahinden and Roger Patterson.

Mullins believes the Sasquatch legend in California and the Pacific Northwest is based solely on the hoaxes made from "his wooden feet" and says some of the Bigfoot promoters are well aware of that possibility.

What, if anything, would you do if you found out they were faking it or making it up?

Don't know, never really considered it to be honest with you. However, one of them is dead, so unless he makes a come back from beyond I guess I'll never know. However, he never recanted it and so far as I know I'm the only one he told it to, it wasn't until we were at his wake that the subject of his quitting hunting rather abruptly as he did came up that I told the group of friends what he told me in confidence. The other is still alive and he and I have maintain contact with each other, however to try and answer your question. I really don't know what I'd "do". I am open to the possibility based on both of their stories and some odd things I've seen myself. Nothing concrete but enough to make me wonder if it isn't true.

.....and there's a huge difference in having something make you go, "Hmmmmmm?" and something make you a card carrying believer.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Sakari 9,642

Rob Lester

Member

9,642

15,413 posts

Gender:Male

Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Q-C 3,458

As far as the over analyzed PGF I have one simple question. Today, we have sophisticated photography equipment, easier to use, and it has only gotten better since the PGF. Yet no good BF photos to date.

Not being a photographer/filmographer, my question is, how likely is it, that I'm riding a horse, am surprised out of my skin to see a bigfoot creature, grab my camera and get such "great" footage? Would realistically this type of shot have taken some time to set up?

Edited December 30, 2012 by QuiteContrary

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Sakari 9,642

Rob Lester

Member

9,642

15,413 posts

Gender:Male

Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

As far as the over analyzed PGF I have one simple question. Today, we have sophisticated photography equipment, easier to use, and it has only gotten better since the PGF. Yet no good BF photos to date.

Not being a photographer/filmographer, my question is, how likely is it, that I'm riding a horse, am surprised out of my skin to see a bigfoot creature, grab my camera and get such "great" footage? Would realistically this type of shot have taken some time to set up?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Q-C 3,458

As far as the pictographs, Native Americans certainly knew their real animal anatomy and nature was honored, respected, and their whole life was wrapped up in it.

So, if they depicted real animals, why the inconsistent numbers as well as the too numerous or shortage of numbers of toes or claws depicted? Is this just typical of their drawings of even known animals?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

keninsc 1,306

Poltergeist

Closed

1,306

3,231 posts

Gender:Not Selected

The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bavarian Raven 1,497

So you basically believe its a tribe of people and the only evidence to support your theory is other people's sightings? If bigfoot (or a tribe) for that matter were real, there would be proof. Fossils, which you put aside, would be the proof needed to determine if they did exist. The fact that not one has been found pretty much proves that its nonsense.

So no unidentified human bones have ever been found in the wilds of the pacific north west?

Finding human bones that cannot be identified happens every few years out here...

Edited December 30, 2012 by Bavarian Raven

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Sakari 9,642

Rob Lester

Member

9,642

15,413 posts

Gender:Male

Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

No one knows how many people really believe Bigfoot exists percentage wise. It would be interesting to know. The problem is, any survey regarding Bigfoot is mainly people " interested " in the topic answering. I do know, living in the Pacific Northwest, and knowing many loggers, hunters, etc. A estimated guess from the joking I hear once in a while, it is a very small percentage here.

Actually, thinking about it, out of about 19 people I have discussed this with, ( thought of names from work and fishing ) not one even thinks there is a possibility of the existence. ( 9 loggers, the rest avid hunters, and at least 3rd generation " Oregonians " that hunt religiously, passed down from family. )

Now, also being in a bigger city part of my life, people in cities do not have the personal experience of being in " Bigfoots backyard ", and tend to only go off of TV shows, and hear say on the internet.

So, why do " people " still believe?

Being educated by television, internet, and the occasional blobsquatch video on entertainment tonight. ( TV ). Not many people take the time to look into the details of the claims, and learn about the facts.

Blame ignorance, television, and the lack of researching.

Go to a hunting forum and talk about Bigfoot, you will not have much discussion, but go on a " paranormal ", or " crypto " site, and of course, there will be discussion.

I used to be one of those people.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Sakari

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

keninsc 1,306

Poltergeist

Closed

1,306

3,231 posts

Gender:Not Selected

The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor